Dear Dave,
This seems to me an excellent example of a bad indexing term. As typically
digging holes and piling up earth comes together, the distinction in
earthwork seems to be ill-chosen to classify things. I feel it is not beneficial
to proceed from there with even more detailed concepts.
What do you think?
Martin
David Forster wrote:
> I tend to agree more with John. You don't want the term hillfort because
> it isn't always on a hill and its not a fort but you do want to use the
> term earthwork though a quarry is not worked earth and it is definitely
> not upstanding. It's not consistent. It might be better to have a term
> that indicates the removal of earth/stone etc and use it for ditches,
> quarries and artificial watercourses. So basically its for where
> earth/stone is removed and earthwork is where something is upstanding.
> What to choose is more complicated. I suspect if I suggest excavation it
> will have too many other connotations possibly 'excavated ground'?
>
>
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Carlisle, Philip <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:51 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [FISH] Evidence term
>
>
> Yep unfortunately John you are. Of course the term quarry exists and
> you would search on that term to retrieve it but the question is
> what do you record as the evidence for an extant quarry?
>
>
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wood [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 20 February 2003 10:51
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [FISH] Evidence term
>
> Goodness me, as an outsider as it were this does seem a little odd
> to me. Surely terms are there to assist SMR searches not confuse
> the. Who on earth would search for quarries under 'earthwork'?
>
>
>
> A quarry may be a hole in the ground but it is still a site created
> by people. It is surely a term in its own right!
>
>
>
> Or am I missing something simple and obvious to everyone but me?
>
>
>
> John Wood
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> John Wood
>
> Senior Archaeologist
>
> Planning and Development Service
>
> The Highland Council
>
> Glenurquhart Road
>
> Inverness IV3 5NX
>
>
>
> Direct line 01381 702502
>
> Web: http://www.higharch.demon.co.uk <http://www.higharch.demon.co.uk/>
>
>
> This Email (and any attachment) is intended for the exclusive use of
> the addressee(s) only. You should not disclose its contents to any
> other person. If you receive this message in error, please contact
> the sender and delete the message. Thank you
>
> Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily
> represent those of my employer.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iles, Peter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 20 February 2003 09:56
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [FISH] Evidence term
>
>
>
> Hi Edmund,
>
>
>
> That sounds like the sort of way I reasoned it. I would probably
> add another entry with 'structure' for any surviving culverts,
> bridges, etc.
>
>
>
> Here's another one, however. How about the form for quarries?
> As the site exists 'in absentia' as it were and was never built in
> the normal meaning of the word, neither 'Earthwork' or 'Structure'
> is appropriate according to the NMR.
>
>
>
> I use earthwork as the least 'wrong'.
>
>
>
> Pete Iles, Lancs SMR
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391609 |
Project Leader SIS | Email: [log in to unmask] |
|
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
